Macro Report August 23, 2004
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Prepared by: Date: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 2: Macro Report August 23, 2004 Country: Sweden Date of Election: 15/9 2002 NOTE TO COLLABORATORS: The information provided in this report contributes to an important part of the CSES project. Your efforts in providing these data are greatly appreciated! Any supplementary documents that you can provide (e.g., electoral legislation, party manifestos, electoral commission reports, media reports) are also appreciated, and may be made available on the CSES website. Part I: Data Pertinent to the Election at which the Module was Administered 1. Report the number of portfolios (cabinet posts) held by each party in cabinet, prior to the most recent election. (If one party holds all cabinet posts, simply write "all".) Name of Political Party Members of parlament LEFT PARTY (VÄNSERPARTIET) 43 SOCIAL DEMOCRATS (SOCIALDEMOKRATERNA) 131 CENTRE PARTY (CENTERPARTIET) 18 PEOPLE’S PARTY LIBERALS (FOLKPARTIET LIBERALERNA) 17 CONSERVATIVE PARTY (MODERATA SAMLINGSPARTIET) 82 CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS (KRISTDEMOKRATERNA) 42 GREEN PARTY (MILJÖPARTIET DE GRÖNA) 16 1a. What was the size of the cabinet before the election? 349 members of parlament All ministers Social Democrats – 22. 2. Report the number of portfolios (cabinet posts) held by each party in cabinet, after the most recent election. (If one party holds all cabinet posts, simply write "all"). Name of Political Party Members of parlament LEFT PARTY (VÄNSERPARTIET) 30 SOCIAL DEMOCRATS (SOCIALDEMOKRATERNA) 144 CENTRE PARTY (CENTERPARTIET) 22 PEOPLE’S PARTY LIBERALS (FOLKPARTIET LIBERALERNA) 48 CONSERVATIVE PARTY (MODERATA SAMLINGSPARTIET) 55 CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS (KRISTDEMOKRATERNA) 33 GREEN PARTY (MILJÖPARTIET DE GRÖNA) 17 2a. What was the size of the cabinet after the election? 349 members of parlament All ministers Social Democrats – 22. Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 2 Module 2: Macro Report 3. Political Parties (most active during the election in which the module was administered and receiving at least 3% of the vote): Party Name/Label Year Party Ideological European Parliament International Party Founded Family Political Group Organizational (where applicable) Membership A. Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left - GUE/NGL LEFT PARTY 1917 C B. The European Parliament Socialist Group - ESP SOCIAL DEMOCRATS 1889 D 27 C. Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe - ALDE CENTRE PARTY 1913 M D. Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe - ALDE PEOPLE’S PARTY LIBERALS 1902 G E. Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European CONSERVATIVE PARTY 1904 E Democrats – EPP-ED F. Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European CHRISTIAN Democrats – EPP-ED DEMOCRATS 1964 I G. Group of the Greens / European Free Alliance – Greens/EFA GREEN PARTY 1981 A Ideological Party Families: (These are suggestions only. If a party does not fit well into this classification scheme, please provide an alternative and some explanation). (A) Ecology Parties (G) Liberal Parties (M) Agrarian Parties (B) Communist Parties (H) Right Liberal Parties (N) Ethnic Parties (C) Socialist Parties (I) Christian Democratic Parties (O) Regional Parties (D) Social Democratic Parties (J) National Parties (P) Other Parties (E) Conservative Parties (K) Independents (F) Left Liberal Parties (L) Single Issue Parties The following lists provide examples of political groups and organizations to which a particular party might belong. Please report any and all international affiliations for each party. European Parliament Political Groups: (14) Christian Democratic Organization of America (1) European People’s Party (EPP ED) (15) Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (2) European Democrats (16) Democratic Union of Africa (3) Party of European Socialists (17) Eastern European Social Democratic Forum (4) European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party (18) Green Movement (5) Confederal Group of European United Left (19) Humanist Party (6) Nordic Green Left (20) International Communist Union (7) Greens (21) International Democrat Union (8) European Free Alliance (22) International League of Democratic Socialists (9) Europe for the Nations (23) Liberal International (10) Europe of Democracies and Diversities (24) Natural Law Party (00) Not Applicable (25) Pacific Democratic Union (98) Don't Know (26) Organization of African Liberal Parties (27) Socialist International International Party Organizations: (28) Socialist Inter-Africa (11) Asia Pacific Socialist Organization (00) Not Applicable (12) Caribbean Democratic Union (98) Don't Know (13) Christian Democratic International Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 3 Module 2: Macro Report 3a. Were there any significant parties not represented in parliament before the election? NO 3b. Were there any significant parties not represented in parliament after the election? NO 3c. Were there any other non-represented parties or independent actors whom you believe to have had a significant effect on the election? NO 4a. Ideological Positions of Parties: Please indicate Parties A-F's positions on a left-right dimension (in the expert judgment of the CSES Collaborator). If this dimension is not appropriate, please provide an explanation of the salient cleavages, and parties' relative positions. Party Name Left Right 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A. X LEFT PARTY B. X SOCIAL DEMOCRATS C. X CENTRE PARTY D. X PEOPLE’S PARTY LIBERALS E. X CONSERVATIVE PARTY F. X CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS G. X GREEN PARTY 4aa. Do you believe there would be general consensus on these placements among informed observers in your country? YES Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 4 Module 2: Macro Report 4b. If you have asked respondents to rank political parties on an alternative dimension, other than the left-right dimension, please also provide your own rankings of the parties on this dimension. NO Name of dimension: Label for left hand position: Label for right hand position: Party Name Left Right 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A. B. C. D. E. F. 4bb. Do you believe there would be general consensus about these placements among informed observers in your country? 5. In your view, what are the five most salient factors that affected the outcome of the election (e.g. major scandals; economic events; the presence of an independent actor; specific issues)? 1. Social welfare 2. Health care 3. Education 4. Child care 5. Taxes Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 5 Module 2: Macro Report 5a. Do you believe there would be general consensus about the importance of these factors among informed observers in your country? So and so 6. Electoral Alliances: Sometimes, electoral alliances are made at the constituency level as, for example, in Finland. Documenting who is allied with whom, and how, in each constituency is a large task and we do not expect you to do more than make some general reference to the existence of constituency-level alliances. Sometimes, electoral alliances are made at the national level -- these are the alliances that we would like you to identify. Information is sought on who is allied with whom and on the nature of the electoral alliance. a) Were electoral alliances permitted during the election campaign? No Yes If yes, please complete the following: Alliance Name Participant Parties (please indicate dominant members with an "*") Alliance 1: Alliance 2: Alliance 3: Alliance 4: Alliance 5: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 6 Module 2: Macro Report 7. Party Leaders and Presidential Candidates: In legislative elections, please report the leader of each party. In presidential elections, list presidential candidates and their parties. If candidates were endorsed by more than one party, please indicate this below. Party of Candidate Name of Party Leader or Presidential Candidate 2002 2004 A. ULLA HOFFMAN LARS OHLY LEFT PARTY B. GÖRAN PERSSON GÖRAN PERSSON SOCIAL DEMOCRATS C. MAUD OLOFSSON MAUD OLOFSSON CENTRE PARTY D. LARS LEIJONBORG LARS LEIJONBORG PEOPLE’S PARTY LIBERALS E. BO LUNDGREN FREDRIK REINFELDT CONSERVATIVE PARTY F. ALF SVENSSON GÖRAN HÄGGLUND CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS G. MARIA MARIA GREEN PARTY WETTERSTRAND WETTERSTRAND PETER ERIKSSON PETER ERIKSSON Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 7 Module 2: Macro Report Part II: Data on Electoral Institutions If possible, please supplement this section with copies of the electoral law, voters’ handbooks, electoral commission reports, and/or any other relevant materials. A. QUESTIONS ABOUT ELECTORAL DISTRICTS. Definitions: An electoral district is defined as a geographic area within which votes are counted and seats allocated. If a district cannot be partitioned into smaller districts within which votes are counted and seats allocated, it is called primary. If it can be partitioned into primary districts, and during the counting process there is some transfer of votes and/or seats from the primary districts to the larger district, then the larger district is called secondary. If a district can be partitioned into secondary districts (again with some transfer of votes and/or seats), it is called tertiary. In some electoral systems, there are electoral districts that are geographically nested but not otherwise related for purposes of seat allocation. In Lithuania, for example, there are 71 single-member districts that operate under a majority runoff system, and also a single nationwide district that operates under proportional representation (the largest remainders method with the Hare quota). Neither votes nor seats